Redmond later says: “Just because people think it, doesn’t make it so.”

Tausendfreund notes that the obstruction of justice charge against Redmond hinged on whether Redmond was attempting to “ferret out if indeed Knoll was a policeman.”

However, the judge concludes he has reasonable doubt as to whether the Crown had established that Redmond was, in fact, obstructing justice.

He also concludes that Vogelzang’s presence at the meeting was not “that of a participant in a plan to ferret out if Knoll was or was not an undercover police officer.”

As a result, Tausendfreund dismissed two counts of obstruction of justice against both men.

Meanwhile, his ruling also noted that by October 2015, “the undercover operation was nearing its conclusion.

“Knoll was given one further task. He was to attempt to have Redmond provide him with a forged court document for which Knoll was to pay him an unspecified sum of money. The plan included a fictitious story that would require Redmond’s assistance in the form of providing a purported court document.”

Knoll then came to Redmond with a fictitious scenario: “He told Redmond that one of his sources of income was as a courier of undeclared cash that he brought into Canada periodically from the United States. He did so for unnamed and of course fictitious people in the United States. He had enough of it and wanted out. However, he needed a reason.

“Within a few days he was to bring $30,000 in U.S. funds into Canada. The plan included his partner, Sam. If the money were to disappear, it would be sufficient to terminate any continued obligation he would have to continue as a courier of undeclared funds for the unnamed people in the U.S.

“The story to the unnamed suppliers of the fictitious money would be that he was stopped by the border police. During the course of being questioned, the police felt that he was lying. They arrested him, searched him and found the $30,000 in U.S. funds, which they confiscated. … What Knoll needed was a court document to confirm that he in fact had been so charged. That is where Redmond came in. Could he be of assistance?”

The court heard that Redmond gained access to a court document on the internet and altered the document to suit Knoll’s request.

Redmond “declined the offer of payment on four different occasions until Knoll stuffed $500 in U.S. funds into a lunchbox belonging to Redmond’s young son.”

“Redmond made neither a responding comment nor did he further resist,” the judge added.

The information was enough for Tausendfreund to find Redmond guilty of knowingly dealing with a forged document. However, he found Redmond not guilty of breach of trust for dealing with the forged document while a police officer.

“Redmond found the document in question on the internet,” the judge concluded.

“Anyone with access to the internet could have done so. The fact that he was a peace officer I find had no part to play in the production of the forged document. It may well be that Redmond’s experience as a peace officer assisted him in preparing this document. However, he was not at that time acting in connection with the duties of his office.”